there are giant bombs like MOAB with the same explosive power of a small tactical nuke. Why don’t they just use the small nuke?
In: Other
Because the side effects of using a nuclear weapon are pretty serious.
Pocket nuclear devices like the Davey Crockett do (and did) exist.
Unleashing one though irradiates the area leaving a small amount of nuclear fallout. Where-as a MOAB doesn’t. Sure it’s destructive, but there’s no radioactive contamination.
You also have to consider the political fallout. Unleashing a nuclear weapon of any size on a nation would have serious ramifications and would likely result in retaliation and escalation.
When it comes to nuclear weapons “The only winning move is not to play”
There are certain Rules of War regarding the use of nukes. If Side A uses one, then Side B may use a bigger one, and then it escalates. In addition, nukes tend to generate nuclear fallout, whereas a MOAB doesn’t. So, you could use a MOAB to clear an area of hostile troops and then move your own troops safely into the area, without worrying about radiation poisoning.
Nuclear weapons are perceived to be a huge red line among the general public and among governments. Unless a country is in a really dire situation, the tactical benefit of using a small nuclear weapon will likely be far outweighed by the diplomatic and economic cost. A major military power would have access to multiple weapons capable of achieving their tactical objectives and hence would be reluctant to use a nuclear one unless to deter some kind of existential threat. A less major military and economic power would likely be highly sanctioned and possibly economically blockaded by the major powers if they use nukes.
Because no matter how small you make the nuke, or how big you make the conventional bomb, it’s still a nuke vs a non-nuke. The nuke is always going to be perceived to be worse, and a “weapon of mass destruction”. It’s like how there’s no such thing as a “little bit” of chemical or biological warfare; **any** amount of it is (generally) condemned. And the use of any WMD is very, very likely to lead to escalation.
There’s some theorizing that if the USSR had invaded western Europe during the Cold War, NATO would almost certainly have had to use tactical nukes to slow the advance of the Red Army, at which point a conflict that started as a conventional one would rapidly turn into a full-on nuclear exchange.
There is a difference in perception and fallout.
But simpler its probably just more expensive to build and handle nukes because nuclear materials and such.
Much simpler answer to add to the other nuclear vs. non-nuclear is that fuel oil is a metric Fuckload less expensive than fissile enrichment; either to U-238 or Pu239
Besides “The Rules of War” there’s also the fallout problem. Radiation doesn’t just affect the enemy and can last between a few hours to a few million years depending on the type
A lot of people have covered the reasons not to use tactical nuclear weapons.
But I’m going to focus on your statement that the MOAB has “the same explosive power of a small tactical nuke.” That’s true if you compare it to the smallest nuclear warhead to enter service, the M-388, which was fired by the “Davy Crockett” recoilless rifle. Its lowest yield setting was equivalent to 10 tons of TNT. The GBU-43 “MOAB” has a warhead of about 18,700lb of Composition H-6 high explosive, which is equivalent to about 11 tons of TNT.
However, the Davy Crockett was withdrawn from service in the early 1970s.
The primary US tactical nuclear bomb today is the B61, which has a variable yield that allows it to be used as either a tactical or strategic bomb. Its lowest setting is 0.3 kilotons (300 tons), or about 27 times more powerful than the MOAB.
So glad we have all these nuclear scientists making unsourced claims about how radiation works. I have a degree that included some of this and I wouldn’t pretend to know as much as Redditors do.
1) It’s worth noting that we don’t use the MOAB, either. Explosives that large aren’t often very useful compared to a series of smaller explosives with specific shapes or payloads. Like, it’s more effective to drop a bomb to break the top of a bunker and then drop another bomb into that same crater than to drop one big bomb. And that’s to say nothing about the possibility of collateral damage. The MOAB is more for shock value than anything, which is why it wasn’t used until 2017 by an administration more concerned with appearances than effectiveness, and unconcerned with civilian casualties.
2) The smallest nukes might have a yield as small as 10 tons of TNT, with the MOAB sitting at 11 tons. But nobody maintains nuclear weapons that small. Those were designed for the Davy Crockett nuclear artillery. Even small, tactical nukes are typically designed to be in the range of a few kilotons to ten-ish kilotons. If you’re using nuke, it’s not because you *want* to specifically use a nuclear device, it’s because you want to deliver more energy to one place at one time than you can deliver with conventional explosives.
Nukes are expensive, dangerous, cause more and longer-lasting negative effects on the area, and have the obvious *tons* of political problems. Given an equivalent yield in conventional explosives, everyone would always *always* choose not to use a nuke. It’s not “Why not use a nuke?” It’s “Why *would* you!?” And the only answer is that they’re just plain bigger. That’s the only reason to ever use a nuke. They’re bigger. Which is why nobody wants to make them smaller.
Latest Answers